Conlin v. . Cantrell

64 N.Y. 217, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 58
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 64 N.Y. 217 (Conlin v. . Cantrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conlin v. . Cantrell, 64 N.Y. 217, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 58 (N.Y. 1876).

Opinion

Miller, J.

The defendant- lived separate and apart from her husband. She had separate property of her own, and he did not support her. The contract of the plaintiff was made with her, and the work done was for herself and children.

She had informed the plaintiff that she had property of her own before the work was done, .and the plaintiff swore she trusted her for that reason. After the debt was contracted she promised to pay it as soon as she got her rents, and the proof shows that she received rents on account of her separate property.

It is true the defendant did not agree specifically to charge her separate estate with the debt, but the surrounding circumstances are such as to lead to the inevitable inference that this was her intention. It may well be that a married woman, thus situated, might render herself liable, where the facts indicate, as was the case here, that she was living alone and separate from her husband, supporting an independent establishment, and maintaining herself and family without any regard to him. Although a rigid scrutiny should be exercised, to see that the rights of a married woman are not frittered away by drawing erroneous conclusions from the *220 circumstances surrounding her, there is sufficient evidence here to warrant the inference that she intended to, and actually did, charge her estate for the plaintiff’s demand. The labor performed was directly for her benefit and the contract was with her alone.

As the case stood the judgment was fully justified, and as it is upheld by the decisions of the courts, it must be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rudnick v. Tuckman
1 A.D.2d 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
In re the judicial settlement of the account of Shipman
1 Connoly 256 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1889)
In re Shipman's Estate
5 N.Y.S. 559 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1889)
Salmon v. McEnany
30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 87 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Johnston v. Peugnet
24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 540 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Radford v. Carwile
13 W. Va. 572 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1879)
Nash v. Mitchell
3 Abb. N. Cas. 171 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 N.Y. 217, 1876 N.Y. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conlin-v-cantrell-ny-1876.